QUICK NEWS, 4-6: CALIF CLIMATE LAW THREATENED BY BIG OIL; HOW TO DRIVE LA SUN; GE BUYS IN ON EU OFFSHORE WIND; NAMING CAP&TRADE

CALIF CLIMATE LAW THREATENED BY OIL
Calif. Climate Law Under Assault in Poor Economy
Juliet Williams, April 5, 2010 (AP via NY Times)

"…With the state mired in a crippling recession, the [2006 California] law [to cut greenhouse gas emissions] that once looked like a landmark achievement [and national model] is coming under assault. The regulatory effort Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger set in motion is facing a political backlash and could come to an abrupt halt in the months ahead.

"A coalition of businesses, financed largely by three Texas oil companies, is funding a ballot petition that would delay the law until California's current unemployment rate is cut by more than half…Leading Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has vowed she would suspend the law on her first day in office…Schwarzenegger, who has staked his legacy on environmental issues, has begun urging air regulators to take a go-slow approach. But he has vowed to fight the ballot initiative."

click to enlarge

"The possibility that a state that has set the national agenda on environmental change for decades might shelve its highly publicized climate regulations could have ramifications beyond California's borders. In Congress, lawmakers are struggling to craft a national climate bill that uses California's as a template, but are facing headwinds…

"At issue: Whether imposing costly regulations on businesses is a smart move as the nation struggles to emerge from recession…Under the measure, oil refineries, manufacturers, cement plants, utilities and other carbon polluters are to begin cutting their emissions in 2012…It is the first economy-wide cap on emissions in the nation, obligating California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, about 30 percent from the levels projected if there were no climate regulations."

click to enlarge

"Oil companies have long opposed California's climate law…The ballot petition is expected to qualify for the November ballot, with taxpayer groups, businesses and oil companies contributing nearly $1 million so far to get signature[s]…The bulk of that money has come from Texas-based oil companies. Valero Services Inc. of San Antonio, has given $500,000. Tesoro Companies of San Antonio and World Oil Corp. of Houston have given $100,000 a piece.

"Petition backers say California cannot afford to impose environmental regulations that would raise utility bills, fuel prices and cost jobs. Republican lawmakers say the law gives companies another reason to flee California…That may be an appealing message to voters who are frustrated with high unemployment, continuing home foreclosures and an ongoing state budget crisis that has forced deep cuts to social services, public schools and higher education…"

click to enlarge

"Both [Republican gubernatorial] candidates cite a much disputed study…which concludes the law could cost 1.1 million jobs…That study, which also is a key element of the initiative campaign, has been discredited by the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst…The California Air Resources Board, the entity charged with implementing the law, estimates climate regulations will promote investments in clean energy and will reduce California's overall fuel expenses $3.8 billion by 2020…

"The state's dismal economy -- hit by the nationwide foreclosure crisis and bank failures -- also has given Schwarzenegger pause…He has urged regulators to tread cautiously as they write the rules to oversee a carbon market in California for the companies that will be asked to cut their emissions…[Last month] the governor suggested the state initially give away carbon credits as a way to avoid high costs to regulated industries. That idea has been criticized by environmentalists…Schwarzenegger has ruled out any call to suspend the law, the centerpiece of his environmental legacy…"


HOW TO DRIVE LA SUN
Returning Power to the People: LA Business Council Report Sheds Light on Cost-Effective Approach to Solar Energy Generation
April 5, 2010 (Business Wire via Earth Times)

"…[T]he Los Angeles Business Council (LABC) and the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation…issued a comprehensive study examining the potential for solar Feed-in Tariff (FiT) programs in Los Angeles County. A FiT program would allow businesses and residents to install solar panels on their roofs and parking lots and sell the power generated [per kilowatt-hour] back to the local utility…

"Relying on advanced economic modeling and interviews with businesses and residents in Los Angeles County, the study finds that regional FiT programs would unleash a new source of cost-effective solar energy and spur significant economic growth. The study calls for the City of Los Angeles to create the largest FiT program in America, adopting a policy that would generate 500 megawatts of electricity within ten years. This program would meet three percent of the city’s energy needs, create more than 11,000 local green jobs and produce long-term cost-savings for businesses, ratepayers and the LADWP."

click to enlarge

"The study’s release comes as Los Angeles’ Mayor, City Council, and DWP Commission remain embroiled in an ongoing debate over rate hikes at the LADWP, which would be used in part to pay for new conservation and renewable energy programs. At an approximate annual cost of $23 million, the proposed FiT program could be created without raising rates at the LADWP…

"...Among the range of alternatives to move the LADWP off of fossil fuels that policymakers are considering, a FiT program would offer the significant benefit of creating thousands of high-wage private sector jobs to install, maintain, repair, assemble and manufacture solar panels inside the Los Angeles basin…"

click to enlarge

"Businesses could leverage federal tax credits to cover approximately 40 percent of the costs of installing solar panels on their property and would ultimately recoup these costs over the life of the FiT contract, plus a rate of return of five to eight percent…Utilities would benefit from the decreased cost of electrical transmission and gain access to a reliable source of [quickly available] solar power…[A] FiT program would save money for utilities over the long-term by eventually producing energy at less cost than other sources of power…

"FiT programs have been successfully implemented in other regions to build robust green economies and meet renewable goals. Gainesville, Florida adopted a hugely popular FiT program in March 2009…[that] met its first-year participation goals within one week…Germany has used a nationwide FiT program to create [more than 100,000 jobs and] the world’s largest solar market despite the country’s marginal sunlight…"


GE BUYS IN ON EU OFFSHORE WIND
GE to invest $453 mln in European offshore wind; Aims to mass produce 4MW offshore wind turbine by 2012
Gwladys Fouche, Aasachristine Stoltz and Kwok W. Wan (w/James Jukwey), March 25, 2010 (Reuters)

"General Electric Co. [announced it] will invest 340 million euros ($453 million) in offshore wind technology in Europe until 2020…

"Around 110 million euros will be invested in British turbine manufacturing and 105 million euros in engineering and production facilities in Germany, with a target of mass producing GE's new 4 megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine as early as 2012…"

The EU has ~2,000 megawatts of installed offshore wind capacity and is planning to expand transmission to serve it. (click to enlarge)

"…[GE expects] sales of hundreds of turbines per year until 2020 with most of the sales and manufacturing in Britain and Germany.

"GE also said Britain's budget announcements on a 60 million pound ($89.52 million) offshore wind infrastructure port development competition…was key to the company's investment decision…"

U.S. offshore wind is caught in a web of NIMBY opposition and political intrigue, leaving domestic manufacturers no choice but to go elsewhere. (click to enlarge)

"The rest of the investment comprises 75 million euros in Norway for testing wind turbines and 50 million euros in Sweden on a design facility…

"Billions have been spent on installing onshore wind farms across Europe over the past decade in an effort to decarbonise power generation, with Denmark and Spain already producing half their electricity from wind."


NAMING CAP&TRADE
And the winner is; Getting a new way to brand cap and trade is tougher than it looks…
Matt LeCar, April 5, 2010 (Greentech Media)

"…[A call for readers] to rebrand cap and trade…[would] better frame the climate debate…[but] none of the ideas…[was] a game changer. Indeed, the atmosphere in Washington is so rancorous that whatever slim hopes might have existed a month ago to reframe or reshape the debate, the prospects for movement on climate and energy legislation in the current session have almost completely evaporated by now. Better luck next year, planet Earth!

"…[A] complete recap of the suggestions…Pay to pollute…Pay your way [for the fossil fuel industry]…Pollution (or emissions) licensing…Resource optimization…CLEANS: Clean Energy for America's National Security…American Energy Transition Incentive Program…The American Carbon Tax Refund Bill…(re)Power America [incorporating the acronym for Renewable Energy] or Energize America…The Freedom from Oil Act, Free Energy Act, or Victory Over Foreign Oil Act…Cap and Invest…"

A bill by any such name just ain't got legs. (click to enlarge)

"…A couple of commenters pointed out that 'cap and dividend' is currently in play in some Congressional discussions, and that alternatives such as 'cap and cash' or 'cap and credit' might be appropriate, depending on the ultimate form of the rebate…

"A few observations…First, focusing on the 'pay' side of the equation is, I believe, unlikely ever to capture the public imagination in a positive way. Frankly, what underpins broad support for clean energy policy is probably as much the feeling that we are paying "too much" for our energy today -- or at least sending our money to unsavory and undemocratic parts of the world…As a question of framing, it is certainly a poor plan to "lead with your chin" and start the conversation with the fact that going green costs more."

Has anybody considered the direct approach? (click to enlarge)

"Framing carbon as a traditional environmental "pollution" problem is also, to my mind, disingenuous and risks underselling the complexity and scale of the sustained, global effort required to combat climate change. CO2 is not some trace toxin to be scrubbed from the smokestacks of a recalcitrant local industrial plant. Carbon emissions are an unavoidable consequence of nearly every energy-using decision and purchase…[T]he challenge of actually measuring it, regulating it and reducing it meaningfully enough to achieve the desired climate benefit is orders of magnitude harder than for traditional environmental irritants.

"…[P]ithy buzzword bingo titles…[for the legislation are inadequate]…[W]e need to rebrand (and perhaps reconsider) cap and trade, not merely rename the bill…Finally, to the family tree of "cap and __" alternatives…Good luck explaining it to the American public in a way that sticks. Good luck getting Congress to approve a big new source of revenue… and give the money back to the taxpayer (rather than…[funding] new bailouts, earmarks, or programs). Good luck getting [South Carolina Republican Senator] Lindsey Graham to sip the sweet Kool-Aid of bipartisanship now that he claims the well has been "poisoned" by the Democrats' successful health care reform push...[I]f I had to declare a winner in all of this, it would be coal."